United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of: Helix Electric, Inc. v. KISAQ RQ 8A 2JV et al

Filing 75

ORDER: The motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 74 ) is Granted. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 05/31/2018. (Attorney Mary Bridget Pendleton terminated as to KISAQ-RQ 8A 2JV, Federal Insurance Company, and Western Surety Company) (ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the
use and benefit of HELIX ELECTRIC,
INC., a California corporation,

12
13
14

Case No.: 15cv1024-WQH-KSC
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

17

KISAQ RQ 8A 2JV, a joint venture;
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a
New Jersey corporation; WESTERN
SURETY COMPANY, a South Dakota
corporation,

18

Defendants.

15
16

19
20

KISAQ RQ 8A 2JV, a joint venture,

21

Counter Claimant,

22

v.

23

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the
use and benefit of HELIX, ECLECTRIC,
INC.,
a
California
corporation;
TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY
COMPANY OF AMERICA; and ROES 1
through 10,

24
25
26
27

Counter Defendants.

28
1
15cv1024-WQH-KSC

1

HAYES, Judge:

2

On May 30, 2018, KISAQ-RQ 8A 2JV, Federal Insurance Company, and Western

3

Surety Company filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar and

4

Mary B. Pendleton as counsel for KISAQ-RQ 8A 2JV, Federal Insurance Company, and

5

Western Surety Company (collectively, “KISAQ-RQ”).

6

construes this filing as a motion to withdraw as counsel. A pretrial conference is set in

7

this case for June 1, 2018.

(ECF No. 74).

The Court

8

KISAQ-RQ contends,

9

Withdrawal will neither prejudice KISA-RQ nor delay trial, as KISAQ-RQ
has been and will continue to be represented by co-counsel David E. Nemeth,
Jr. Mr. Nemeth has filed numerous pleadings in this case, and is familiar with
the issues presented. KISAQ-RQ, through co-counsel Mr. Nemeth,
acknowledges its consent to moving party’s withdrawal as co-counsel and
having Mr. Nemeth remain its sole counsel.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(ECF No. 74 at 2).
An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court. Darby v. City of
Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). “The decision to grant or deny counsel’s
motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Irwin v. Mascott,
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2004) (citing Washington v. Sherwin Real
Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982)). District courts ruling upon motions to
withdraw as counsel have considered:
(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may
cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the
administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay
the resolution of the case.
Irwin, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28264, at 4.

25

Upon a review of the record, the Court concludes that there is good cause to grant

26

the motion to withdraw. The Court concludes that withdrawal will not prejudice the

27

litigants or unduly delay resolution of the case as KISAQ-RQ will continue to be

28

represented by David E. Nemeth.
2
15cv1024-WQH-KSC

1
2
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 74) is
GRANTED.
Dated: May 31, 2018

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15cv1024-WQH-KSC